Wilson v. Durrani

• Decision Date: 23 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2019-1560,2019-1560
• Citation: 173 N.E.3d 448,164 Ohio St.3d 419
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: WILSON et al., Appellees, v. DURRANI et al., Appellants.

164 Ohio St.3d 419

173 N.E.3d 448

WILSON et al., Appellees,

v.DURRANI et al., Appellants.

No. 2019-1560

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted August 5, 2020

Decided December 23, 2020

Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., Paul W. Flowers, and Louis E. Grube, Cleveland; Robert A. Winter Jr. ; The Deters Law Firm Co. II, P.A., Benjamin M. Maraan II, and James F. Maus ; and Law Offices of Glenn D. Feagan, P.S.C., and Glenn D. Feagan, Hudson, for appellees.

Taft Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., Aaron M. Herzig, Russell S. Sayre, and Philip D. Williamson, Cincinnati, for appellants.

Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., Paul W. Flowers, and Louis E. Grube, Cleveland, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice.

Zagrans Law Firm, L.L.C., and Eric H. Zagrans, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Cleveland Academy of Trial Attorneys.

Squire Patton Boggs (US), L.L.P., Benjamin Beaton, Lauren S. Kuley, Cincinnati, Heather L. Stutz, and Christopher Haas, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio State Medical Association, and Ohio Osteopathic Association.

Sean McGlone, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Hospital Association.

Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., Susan M. Audey, Raymond Krncevic, and Elisabeth C. Arko, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae Academy of Medicine of Cleveland & Northern Ohio.

French, J. {¶ 1} This appeal asks whether a plaintiff may take advantage of Ohio's saving statute to refile a medical claim after the applicable one-year statute of limitations has expired if the four-year statute of repose for medical claims has also expired. We apply the plain and unambiguous language of the statute of repose and answer that question in the negative.

Facts and procedural background

{¶ 2} Appellees, Robert Wilson and Mike and Amber Sand, filed complaints against appellants, Abubakar Atiq Durrani, M.D.; his clinic, Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc.; West Chester Hospital, L.L.C.; and UC Health, in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in December 2015. The Sands asserted claims that arose out of a spinal surgery that Dr. Durrani had performed on Mike Sand in April 2010, and Wilson asserted claims that arose out of spinal surgeries that Dr. Durrani had performed on him in February and April 2011. Appellees are but a few of the many plaintiffs who have filed similar malpractice and related claims against Dr. Durrani and his clinic.

{¶ 3} Both the Wilson complaint and the Sands complaint acknowledge that appellees had previously filed their claims against appellants in prior actions that were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a), but neither complaint provides any additional information about those actions. Nevertheless, the parties agree that the Sands and Wilson initially filed their claims against appellants in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas in March and April 2013 respectively and that appellees voluntarily dismissed those claims without prejudice in late 2015—the Sands on November 25 and Wilson on December 11—before refiling their claims in Hamilton County.

{¶ 4} Appellants moved for judgment on the pleadings in both refiled cases, arguing that Ohio's medical statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), barred appellees' refiled claims because they arose out of surgeries that had been performed more than four years before appellees refiled. The trial court agreed and granted appellants' motions.

{¶ 5} Appellees appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, where they argued that the trial court erred by entering judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellants, because the Ohio saving statute afforded them one year after the voluntary dismissals of their claims in Butler County in which to refile their claims, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of repose. The First District reversed the trial court's judgment. 2019-Ohio-3880, 145 N.E.3d 1071, ¶ 31-32, 34. It held that appellees had timely refiled their claims pursuant to the saving statute and that the statute of repose did not bar their refiled claims. Id. at ¶ 32.

{¶ 6} This court accepted appellants' discretionary appeal to address whether the saving statute permits the refiling of actions beyond the expiration of the medical statute of repose. See 157 Ohio St.3d 1562, 2020-Ohio-313, 138 N.E.3d 1152.

Analysis

Statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, and saving statutes

{¶ 7} The question presented in this appeal requires us to consider the interplay between three distinct types of statutes: (1) statutes of limitations, (2) statutes of repose, and (3) saving statutes.

{¶ 8} Statutes of limitations and statutes of repose share a common goal of limiting the time during which a putative wrongdoer must be prepared to defend against a claim, but they operate differently and have distinct applications. Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. , 148 Ohio St.3d 483, 2016-Ohio-7432, 71 N.E.3d 974, ¶ 11, citing CTS Corp. v. Waldburger , 573 U.S. 1, 7, 134 S.Ct. 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 62 (2014).

{¶ 9} A statute of limitations establishes "a time limit for suing in a civil case, based on the date when the claim accrued (as when the injury occurred or was discovered)." Black's Law Dictionary 1707 (11th Ed.2019). A statute of limitations operates on the remedy, not on the existence of the cause of action itself. Mominee v. Scherbarth , 28 Ohio St.3d 270, 290, 503 N.E.2d 717 (1986), fn. 17 (Douglas, J., concurring). A statute of repose, on the other hand, bars "any suit that is brought after a specified time since the defendant acted * * * even if this period ends before the plaintiff has suffered a resulting injury." Black's at 1707. A statute of repose bars the claim—the right of action—itself. Treese v. Delaware , 95 Ohio App.3d 536, 545, 642 N.E.2d 1147 (10th Dist.1994). The United States Supreme Court has likened the bar imposed by a statute of repose to a discharge in bankruptcy—as providing "a fresh start" and "embod[ying] the idea that at some point a defendant should be able to put past events behind him." CTS Corp. at 9, 134 S.Ct. 2175.

{¶ 10} Statutes of limitations and statutes of repose target different actors. Id. at 8, 134 S.Ct. 2175. Statutes of limitations emphasize plaintiffs' duty to diligently prosecute known claims. Id. , citing Black's Law Dictionary 1546 (9th Ed.2009). Statutes of repose, on the other hand, emphasize defendants' entitlement to be free from liability after a legislatively determined time. Id. at 9, 134 S.Ct. 2175. In light of those differences, statutory schemes commonly pair a shorter statute of limitations with a longer statute of repose. California Pub. Emps.' Retirement Sys. v. ANZ Securities, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2042, 2049, 198 L.Ed.2d 584 (2017). When the discovery rule—that is, the rule that the statute of limitations runs from the discovery of injury—governs the running of a statute of limitations, the "discovery rule gives leeway to a plaintiff who has not yet learned of a violation, while the rule of repose protects the defendant from an interminable threat of liability." Id. at ––––, 137 S.Ct. at 2050.

{¶ 11} In contrast to statutes of limitations and statutes of repose, both of which limit the time in which a plaintiff may file an action, saving statutes extend that time. Saving statutes are remedial and are intended to provide a litigant an adjudication on the merits. Wasyk v. Trent , 174 Ohio St. 525, 528, 191 N.E.2d 58 (1963). Generally, a saving statute will provide that "where an action timely begun fails in some manner described in the statute, other than on the merits, another action may be brought within a stated period from such failure."

Annotation, 6 A.L.R.3d 1043 (1966). It acts as an exception to the general bar of the statute of limitations. Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc. , 69 Ohio St.2d 222, 232, 431 N.E.2d 660 (1982) (Krupansky, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

{¶ 12} We now turn to the specific statutes applicable here.

The applicable statutes: R.C. 2305.113(A), 2305.113(C), and 2305.19

{¶ 13} The court of appeals held—and no party disputes—that appellees' claims constitute "medical claims" as defined in R.C. 2305.113(E)(3). 2019-Ohio-3880, 145 N.E.3d 1071, at ¶ 19. R.C. 2305.113 sets out both a one-year statute of limitations, R.C. 2305.113(A), and a four-year statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), that apply to medical claims in Ohio.

{¶ 14} R.C. 2305.113(A) states, "Except as otherwise provided in this section, an action upon a medical * * * claim shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued." A claim for medical malpractice accrues, and the one-year statute of limitations begins to run, "(a) when the patient discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury, or (b) when the physician-patient relationship for that condition terminates, whichever occurs later." Frysinger v. Leech , 32 Ohio St.3d 38, 512 N.E.2d 337 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 15} R.C. 2305.113(C) sets out Ohio's statute of repose for medical claims:

Except as to persons within the age of minority or of unsound mind as provided by section 2305.16 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in division (D) of this section, both of the following apply:

(1) No action upon a medical * * * claim shall be commenced more than four years after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical * * * claim.

(2) If an action upon a medical * * * claim is not commenced within four years after the occurrence of the act or omission constituting the alleged basis of the medical * * * claim, then, any action upon that claim is barred.

{¶ 16} R.C. 2305.113(C) "exists to give medical providers certainty with respect to the time within which a claim can be brought and a time after which they may be free from the fear of litigation." Ruther v. Kaiser , 134 Ohio St.3d 408, 2012-Ohio-5686, 983 N.E.2d 291, ¶ 19. It is a "true statute of repose that applies to...